Scenario: A pressurized hanger on a ship is currently full of invading goblins unaware of the PC who is in another room with access to the hanger's tier 2 computer which they have hacked. A second successful hack provides the PC with access to the control module for the hanger bay door which leads into the vacuum of space. If he initiates the hanger bay door opening command (planning on sucking the goblins out into space) there is a 1 minute safety window where alarms and lights go off and goblins can easily hit one of the many shiny red shutdown buttons in the hanger to prevent the door from opening and then descend on the PC and tear them to itty bitty bits. The hanger bay door computer module isn't designed to NOT set off alarms (duh,) there isn't an option for it because that is not present in the programming so in a sense you are disabling the command that activates the alarms.
Question: Can you "disable device" specific software like this with a computer skill check? Say DC 21 that takes 2 rounds on a tier 2 computer?
(This won't count for much, because the Computers skill as a whole is designed to hand-wave most of this stuff away, so that people don't have to worry about it. But I figured I would post it anyway.)
If we're using real-world application, it's going to vary heavily by system. There is no one answer to this because it would depend on how the alarm and doors were built. It would depend on what sets off the alarm, and how the systems communicate.
Situation A (The hangar door controls send a "Hey, I'm opening the door!" signal to alarm monitoring system, which then sets off the alarm in the hangar area): You may be able to hack the door controls to not send the signal to the alarm system.
Situation B (The alarm system monitors the hangar bay controls, and sounds the alarm in the hangar when the signal is sent to the door.) In which case you'd need to disable the alarm system itself, which probably isn't available via the hangar door controls.
The whole alarm/door combo were singular and didn't really interact with anything else, then they might fall into situation A.
In a sense I like both of your options in that there would simply be another hack hand-wave skill check to not have the alarm go off regardless of how it was wired. This being an on the fly decision and not a fully pre-designed, scripted computer encounter.
Opening the hanger doors was an innovative solution that a PC came up with and I decided to roll with it by including a safety window with the alarm but wasn't quite sure how to direct him to overcome said obstacle. I'm glad that they did this, I would like them to do more of it but in that sense I can see PCs wanting to disable certain door access panels, prevent certain subroutines from working, overriding specific signals, etc. and wanted to have a quick (read not boring) way to address disabling select software commands.
Yeah, Situation A would merely be a matter of deactivating the control module operating the alarm monitoring system. That's outlined in the Computers skill description and simply has the same DC as hacking the computer in the first place. Or 10, if you have root access. So, yeah, that's an entirely intended use for the Computers skill.
As for Situation B, there really isn't a kind of "monitoring module" for one computer (alarm system) to observe what another computer (hangar door control) is doing. A computer can control another computer, it can be authorized to send specific commands to another computer, but monitoring what the other computer is doing isn't really in the rules. The only way I could think of how that would work is that it's the other way around to Situation A. So, the hangar door controls would be a control module to the alarm system, a higher-tier computer. In that case, you could use the hangar door controls as an access point to hack the alarm system. From there, you could deactivate the "monitoring" (control) module for the hangar door controls. I think that would be fine and pretty close to the rules. Having two computers be connected and sending messages to each other, but not having one be hackable from the other seems to me to go against the spirit of how the Computers skill should work.
Or you could abstract the whole thing away and have it work similarly to a fake shell. Because if some system is monitoring the computer, then the "monitoring process" or whatever on the computer would probably be somewhat hidden. So, you'd have to succeed on a Hack DC + 5 check to notice the monitoring. If you just pass the Hack DC, but not the +5, then it does properly send the "open the doors" signal, but also sounds the alarm. If you succeed on Hack DC + 5, you notice the monitoring and can turn it off before sending the command.
I'd also allow the character to scour around for this monitoring process without sending the signal, getting the same increasing bonuses as for detecting a fake shell. Maybe you'd get a check more often than once a minute, I dunno. But in any case, this would either take a lot of skill or a lot of time which seems fair and in line with fake shell.
In the larger scope as we move through the game I see players wanting to use the Computer skill as Disable Device. Hacking with the Computer skill just lets you access and operate a computer as it was designed/programmed. Not setting of alarms in the hangar - the retina scanner on a door lock not initiating - styrofoam cup not dropping to catch the hot coffee - their associated computers are not programmed to ignore doing these things.
Disable Device is covered under the Engineering skill and even has "disarm a security system from a control panel or similar device" as an example along with sabotaging and jamming things.
If I say the hangar alarms are fundamentally part of the hangar door module thingy and the PC uses his Computer skill to Hack to gain access would it be reasonable to require an Engineering check to Disable Device the alarm?
Hacking with the Computers skill just lets you access and operate a computer as it was designed/programmed. Not setting of alarms in the hangar - the retina scanner on a door lock not initiating - styrofoam cup not dropping to catch the hot coffee - their associated computers are not programmed to ignore doing these things.
I'm not sure about that. It depends on whether they're computers. Because the Starfinder definition of "computer" is actually very narrow and that's entirely on purpose.
A door lock or a technological construct may make computations, but they're not computers. As Juniperkitsu points out over here, technological items, even complex ones, are not computers unless specifically stated.Locks are pretty complex technological items, opening with "a code, security chip, or voice command", but the Computers skill doesn't do anything with them because they're not computers by the Starfinder definition. It's Engineering to crack locks. Similarly, the coffee machine is generally not going to be a computer, so you can't even hack it to avoid it dropping the cup. On-board "computers" (in the real-world sense) of vehicles also wouldn't be computers in the Starfinder sense, even if they have autopilot.
But if you do define something as a computer and let a character hack it, then you should assume that they have complete control over it and only with the Computers skill. Many specialized uses of the Computers skill from flavor text here and there include rewriting code, introducing viruses and what-have-you. If you could rewrite the code of the coffee machine, then you could absolutely stop it from dropping the cup. Or have it drop five cups.
If I wanted to define a coffee machine as a computer in the Starfinder sense, then every actuator would be controlled through a control module which can be manipulated with the Computers skill. And if the players then don't weaponize high-pressure hot coffee, I would be very disappointed.
Disable Device is covered under the Engineering skill and even has "disarm a security system from a control panel or similar device" as an example along with sabotaging and jamming things.
I think this is for cases where the "control panel or similar device" isn't a computer. It's more that you have a keypad that directly controls some system. After all, locks have keypads, too. It's not an all-purpose computer, but a very specialized device. 'cause if they're a computer, you operate it with the Computers skill. If it's any other technological item, you use Engineering.
A turret isn't a computer, so you can deactivate it with Engineering. A computer can control a turret, though. If you had access to that computer, you could manipulate or deactivate the turret with the Computers skill because it's just a control module.I know the general knowledge of computer science is much higher on these forums than in general, so we see computers everywhere. But think of the general public, the people not savvy with computers. Think of your elderly relative who thinks the browser symbol on their desktop is "the internet".
If they look at this item, would they think of it as a computer? Then you can use the Computers skill. This would encompass company mainframes, the personal computer at the counter, but also small, handheld computers. The only leap in thinking they'd have to make is that computers can control pretty much any other technological item through control modules.
Things that aren't included in that are electronic locks, the intercom system, vehicles, cameras, electronically controlled doors and so on and so forth. Computers doesn't do anything in that case, but Engineering might. Furthermore, if you're messing around with the physical system of any technological item (cracking open the case, fiddling with wires), I'd also use Engineering in all cases.
Of course, if you, as the GM, want more technological items to be considered computers, you can do that. But be careful not to make options like the Discharge spell or the Mechanic's Overload completely obsolete. And letting your players hack an NPC's equipment is just asking for trouble.
Actually, now that I look at the "Computers" section of the equipment chapter again, the examples it has for tier-1 computers include "a common datapad, a door lock, or a lighting controller".
So... yeah, I dunno, that seems weird. Surely, if door locks are considered computers, I could hack them, thus making that specific use of the Engineering skill completely superfluous. In fact, it would even be much easier 'cause it's a DC 17 Computers check vs a DC 20+ Engineering check. And if a lighting controller is a computer, then surely, a hangar door controller or alarm system controller are, as well. Also, if I can hack pretty much anything, it makes Overload much worse.
That doesn't seem intended at all. What the heck...